Tories - convince me you're not evil

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

Seriously SD good luck with that. I'm not talking the piss now, but you seem to either get your kicks to a ridiculous degree from winding people up, or you have an exceptionally fragile ego. Either way that can't be good for you.

That Twitter incident was the act of confirmation. Definitely not the behaviour you'd associate with a "well" and rational thinking person.

 

The patheticness of it makes one laugh, despite it being a really nasty, uncalled for and twatty thing to do.

[Winston Wolf]

So point out where I defended it.

 

Stop making shit up. That goes for the rest of your post too, incidentally.

Good one.

So Stronts. It's the role of any Government to protect it's most vulnerable and not enrich it's most powerful who have massive, inherited wealth and use the right wing press to tell the slightly rich that the poor are taking advantage of the 'something for nothing culture' when Tory politicians charge more to the public purse each week than most families live on in a year. where do you stand on that?

And let's talk about your tone and just about everyone telling you it's fucking horrible in the way that you race around with almost evangelical zeal making sure that you shout above everyone else. And how you are always right and always the victim.

And incidentally, I haven't made any of that up. Cameron has said in the last three weeks that poor and working peoples problems all stem from them not saving enough and from the something for nothing culture.

You're clearly a Government apologist, well you were when your brave 'heroes' were  what is laughingly known as a 'part' of it. Let's hear your views on that, instead of deflecting and horse shitting.

[Strontium]

Turn it in.

 

It's the internet. People type stuff like "take" instead of "providing £30 less per month than they previously did" for brevity etc.

 

It's still making the same point. And people understand what it means. And it still has the same detrimental effects for the people subject to such policies. That's the important issue.

 

So, yes. It is gobshitery and petty semantics. Entirely.

 

There's nothing petty about it. Government takes money (tax), and government gives money (welfare). To confuse the two is to lose the argument before it's begun.

 

Quite why a call for accuracy should be met with such hostility is beyond me.

[Strontium]

It's because your shitty extinct party propped them up.  Wouldn't have happened without your lot.

 

Hilarious. Do you do children's parties?

[Pureblood]

Yeah, the Lib Dem party.  

[Strontium]

I'm sorry you still hate freedom so much.

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

Better then hating Palestinians....

[Pureblood]

I'm sorry you still hate freedom so much.

 

And I'm sorry you got cunted to bits and are no longer relevant.  Truce?

[Strontium]

Better then hating Palestinians....

 

Thanks for that, Mr Irrelevant.

 

Let's see if I can out-irrelevant you.

 

"Better than hating marshmallows"

[Moo]

SD, reducing the benefits paid out to someone (ie "giving less"), even on a temporary basis, to a someone who's otherwise perfectly entitled to those benefits in our current system is absolutely "taking" from them, however much you might want to play with the wording.

[Strontium]

And I'm sorry you got cunted to bits and are no longer relevant.  Truce?

 

I wasn't aware we were at war, other than you negging me 5 times for asking people to be more accurate with their language.

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

What a life. From failed Lib Dem MP wannabe to correcting people's language on the internet! Ha ha ha.

 

Living. The. Dream.

[Strontium]

SD, reducing the benefits paid out to someone (ie "giving less"), even on a temporary basis, to a someone who's otherwise perfectly entitled to those benefits in our current system is absolutely "taking" from them, however much you might want to play with the wording.

 

So you all keep saying, in between calling me a narcissist, racist etc

 

Nobody should ever wonder why this place resembles an echo chamber when merely querying use of language sees a person practically lynched.

[Pureblood]

I wasn't aware we were at war, other than you negging me 5 times for asking people to be more accurate with their language.

 

It was going to be eight negs but I decided to give you three fewer.  

[Boss]

I imagine them more as the cats from Maus.

 

Yes because caring about people paying into a system that cuts healthcare, social care, education, school dinners for kids and benefits for the disabled and terminally ill is the equivalent of killing 6 million Jews. Sound logic there Stronts.

[Winston Wolf]

So you all keep saying, in between calling me a narcissist, racist etc

 

Nobody should ever wonder why this place resembles an echo chamber when merely querying use of language sees a person practically lynched.

Ouch.

So Stronts, we have a Tory Government waging war on the poor and anyone who didn't vote for them, Multi-Millionaires who live a Utopian life creating a Dystopian existence for the most vulnerable and you're giving Larry Grayson slaps to people over their use of language.

[Strontium]

Ouch.

So Stronts, we have a Tory Government waging war on the poor and anyone who didn't vote for them, Multi-Millionaires who live a Utopian life creating a Dystopian existence for the most vulnerable and you're giving Larry Grayson slaps to people over their use of language.

 

What can I say, I have an unerring ability to see the bigger picture.

 

Not using retarded arguments is the first step towards winning the argument.

 

It's the utter bankrupt incompetence of the left wing in this country that is the reason we've had so many Tory governments.

[Moo]

SD, reducing the benefits paid out to someone (ie "giving less"), even on a temporary basis, to a someone who's otherwise perfectly entitled to those benefits in our current system is absolutely "taking" from them, however much you might want to play with the wording.

(meant to quote SD's reply not my own post, stupid phone)

 

SD, why am I not surprised that you can't bring yourself to agree with this?

Do I take it that you therefore believe that if you're employer pays you less wages than you were expecting and are entitled to that is also him "giving less" and not "taking" from you?

[Winston Wolf]

What can I say, I have an unerring ability to see the bigger picture.

 

Not using retarded arguments is the first step towards winning the argument.

 

It's the utter bankrupt incompetence of the left wing in this country that is the reason we've had so many Tory governments.

Insulting my intelligence. That's the first plank of your defence mechanism.

Next it's 'look in the mirror and you'll see what a Facist looks like'.

After that it's 'freedom hater'.

Just reminding you of the usual Stronts three steps towards getting his arse handed to him argument.

So Stronts.

People who have life threatening illnesses and severe mental health issues are having 30 quid a week taken off them from their already massive 100 quid a week, despite it being accepted that they have real problems. Just to 'incentivise them into work'. How do you feel about that?

You see the poster Dr Nowt up there, a page or two back, he said that he is more than willing for free to help the vulnerable fill in forms, those that have learning diabilities and physical and mental problems. Now, I don't know Ben's socio-economic position, but what I do know is that he is a man who knows the value of things over the price of things.

Now Stronts, think hard, when was the last time that you did anything for anybody? When was the last time YOU did something for someone you didn't know to help them out?

This is a community on here, where we all look out for each other, at least in theory. It's our little society away from the howling shitness of the real world. There are people on here with knowledge, skills and intelligence, which are used for the good of others. That you are on the very, very outer periphery of this 'community' and laughed at generally disliked says alot about you.

So. Think hard. Why is that? What do you do for anyone else? Why is that you are the only one that considers yourself a 'victim' in our community and society?

There are alot of good people on here, most of whom are those nasty 'lefties' all of us are probably skint in real terms, but rich in human nature.

And then there's you. Who isn't. And isn't really a part of it. Just a bellend with a big gob, a bad attitude and a ready stat to justify it.

[Strontium]

Why am I not surprised that you can't bring yourself to agree?

Do I take it that you therefore believe that if you're employer pays you less wages than you were expecting and are entitled to that is also him "giving less" and not "taking" from you?

 

This is a poor analogy, because I have a contract with my employer that guarantees me a specific wage.

 

State handouts, on the other hand, are given on a non-contractual basis.

[Hooch]

Hmmm anyone would think the change to ESA and the pension investment fund changes, oh and the change to how child poverty is measured, has been announced in the week all political journos are walking themselves furiously about the EU referendum, to hide it?

[Moo]

This is a poor analogy, because I have a contract with my employer that guarantees me a specific wage.

 

State handouts, on the other hand, are given on a non-contractual basis.

So you think a contract changes the meaning? I think it only changes the legality of the act, not the meaning of it.

[Strontium]

So you think a contract changes the meaning? I think it only changes the legality of the act, not the meaning of it.

 

 

The legality is important, isn't it? Legality is the difference between tax and theft, for instance.

 

A contract ordinarily gives a person a legal right to a set wage. If that wage was illegally docked, it would be absolutely correct to talk in terms of "taking" rather than "giving less".

 

Welfare recipients, on the other hand, have no legal right to a set level of benefit. The government can, assuming it follows the proper procedures, alter the level of money given at will.

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

Zzzzzzzzzzzz!

[Moo]

The legality is important, isn't it? Legality is the difference between tax and theft, for instance.

 

A contract ordinarily gives a person a legal right to a set wage. If that wage was illegally docked, it would be absolutely correct to talk in terms of "taking" rather than "giving less".

 

Welfare recipients, on the other hand, have no legal right to a set level of benefit. The government can, assuming it follows the proper procedures, alter the level of money given at will.

I know all that. I asked about the meaning of the act not the legality. The legality which although hugely important does not alter the meaning.

If you didn't have a contract with your employer and your work was on a casual basis with no formal agreement or rights, if he paid you less than expected as per my "poor analogy" he'd still be taking from you, wouldn't he?